The not very tabletly Windows 8 tablets of IFA

Hybrid hardware for hybrid software.

Lots of new Windows 8 and Windows RT machines were on show at IFA in Berlin this week, many of them being given their first outing in public.

Clamshell keyboard docks adorned many of the tablets. These keyboard docks typically included extra ports and extra batteries. Most importantly of all, they included a hinge, so the screen could be positioned at any angle relative to the keyboard, and you can shut them up and use them like laptops. You could call them tablets with keyboard docks, but you'd be forgiven for calling them laptops with tear-off screens. Indeed, Asus is describing its Transformer Book as exactly that. Quite what the difference is between a convertible laptop and a dockable tablet isn't clear.

Many of these devices, even the ones claiming to be dockable tablets, will ship with their keyboard attachments in-box. The remainder will have it as an option. Only one device, the ARM-powered, Windows RT-running Samsung ATIV Tab has no public keyboard solution, though even it appears to have a dock connector on the bottom; perhaps Samsung plans to announce the keyboard later.

Then there were the devices that were out-and-out hybrids; the Dell XPS 12 Duo, a laptop form factor with a screen that can spin around in the lid; the Sony Duo 11, a tablet in which the screen slides into a fixed position to reveal a keyboard; and the Toshiba U925t, a cross between a laptop and a sunroof, where the screen can be folded flat and then slid over the keyboard to turn it into a tablet.

There's even the utterly insane Asus Taichi which decides that instead of having a complex sliding or hinging mechanism it'd be easier to simply have two screens, one on the inside and one on the outside. And while it wasn't revealed at IFA, Lenovo's IdeaPad Yoga is still on its way; on that model, the hinge simply lets you fold the laptop screen all the way back so that it lies flat against the bottom of the machine.

So if you want a laptop with a tear-off screen, or a laptop with a screen that flips or slides to convert into a fat tablet, or even a laptop with a second screen on the outside of its lid so that you can use it when closed, you're all set. You'll have lots of weird and wonderful options. Well, weird, anyway.

Enlarge/ The Dell XPS Duo 12 is many things; it isn't, however, a tablet.

Dell

But if you're looking for a simple tablet, a straightforward, lightweight device that delivers an uncompromised touch experience, your options are remarkably few. But the dearth of tablety tablets is expected; the Windows 8 operating system is a hybrid, so it's not too surprising that the devices are too. As early video reviews by Ed Bott at ZDNet and The Verge demonstrate, the same holds true of Windows RT; it has an almost-complete Windows desktop (absent Windows Media Player, WordPad, and one or two other small things), and so retains the dependence on the mouse and keyboard for effective navigation.

Neither hardware nor software are engineered to give any direct equivalent to the iPad experience, and it seems that Microsoft is happy for that, preferring to promote access to full-featured desktop applications—and desktop user input devices—as strengths, rather than weaknesses, of the operating system.

Much as hybrid devices make sense given the operating system, they cause concerns of their own. We've seen hybrid designs like these before. Past Windows tablets—tablets that existed before Windows had an interface suitable for tablet users—relied on a variety of flipping and rotating screens. None of them were hugely successful, and while Windows itself was the prime cause of that, the extra cost and complexity of these hybrid devices was a small contributing factor.

Are the OEMs making a mistake here? Some industry watchers think they are, pointing to the failures of these older hybrids. The situations aren't quite analogous, though; in prior versions of Windows, the benefits of hybrid hardware were few, because of the dearth of touch software. With Windows 8, there is at least the potential for a rich ecosystem of touch software, making the complexity worth having.

But if the OEMs are making a mistake, Microsoft is arguably making the same mistake. While its Surface RT tablets won't offer the same flexibility as a clamshell keyboard dock (the kickstand holds the screen only at one angle, for example), they too will ship with keyboard covers and so are also hybrids of a sort.

And while it might be a mistake, it might also be an important safeguard. The hybridity of these devices has an important repercussion: if the response to Windows 8 is to treat it like a mostly desktop operating system with just a little bit of touch here and there, that's OK. They'll work just fine.

212 Reader Comments

But what Windows RT lacks is the option of being simple and entirely controllable by touch alone. That's a huge downside.

Agreed. For the RT tablet, MS needs a Metro version of Office. Meaning MS needs to eliminate the traditional desktop and go completely finger touch ASAP.- It will happen but until then the RT tablet is still a transition experience.

Office 15 for Metro is included with the Surface Tablet (WinRT) and is fully touch enabled.

bb-15 wrote:

DrPizza wrote:

Surface RT will have a mini-HDMI output, so there's a good chance you'll be changing the resolution every time you plug it into a monitor.

Another example of where Windows RT is in transition. The Win 8 control panel also needs to be completely finger touch.

* The Win RT product is getting very close to the iPad but is not yet there.

I'll need to see the Surface RT when it comes in. Not sure how it'll handle devices.

I see a lot of misinformation revolving around the WinRT version. I think most people are confusing the Intel and WOA versions. They are very separate. You will not be able to run native Windows apps on the WinRT tablets, only Metro apps. However on the Surface Pro, you will be able to run both Windows and Metro apps because it's using an Intel processor.

Peter's article includes a link to a video review of Windows RT with Ed Bott. I also saw the Ed Bott review. My comments, including those about Office on Windows RT, are based on it.

Transforming a tablet into a laptop is, to be fair, a misunderstanding of the original idea. And this also concerns the iPad's keyboard/dock from Apple.

The most beautiful novelty of the iPad is how you can freely position it, while still keeping your keyboard where you feel it to be more comfortable. Keep it far on a table, and keep the keyboard on your laps.

Forcing it to return to the compromise, uncomfortable shape/setup of a classic laptop is a meaningless move. Why should you look down at a screen, when you can move it far and warrant your eyes a more natural straight direction?

Based on my own experience with a tablet + bluetooth keyboard, I disagree. The lack of connection is more disadvantage than advantage. Keyboard in the lap is less advantageous than keyboard on a table, and if you have a table the keyboard will be next to it. If you don't have a table, attached keyboard means you don't have to juggle the two devices separately in your lap.

There is an advantage to being able to dispense with the keyboard and just use the tablet, no question there. But that option still exists for many of these devices. I would much rather get a device with a detachable keyboard than another device with a non-attached wireless keyboard.

Fair enough, but you will note that my needs (in addition to the "lower-level users'" needs) are thoroughly addressed by Apple products...and there's no Microsoft-based product on the horizon that's going to replace my iPad.

Well, there's no Apple product that's going to replace my desktop system with an Intel i7-2700k quad-core CPU and an NVIDIA GTX 680. The point is that different people have different needs.

I can understand people saying that hybrids aren't right for them -- I'm not sure I would want one, myself. On the other hand, I can't agree with people who say that hybrids aren't right for <i>anyone<i>.

(Though, I admit, that was my first reaction to the iPad, but the market disagreed.)

You don't need a keyboard or mouse for WinRT. it is 100% touch. The devices people are seeing are the Pro versions that run on Intel processors not the ARM ones. I've been told that the WinRT will not have the typical Desktop experience but be Metro only.

I don't know who told you that. Please watch the videos I linked.

Quote:

Office 15 for Metro is included with the Surface Tablet (WinRT) and is fully touch enabled.

It is included; it is not fully touch enabled.

Quote:

I'll need to see the Surface RT when it comes in. Not sure how it'll handle devices.

If they have an in-box class driver, they'll work.

Quote:

I see a lot of misinformation revolving around the WinRT version. I think most people are confusing the Intel and WOA versions. They are very separate. You will not be able to run native Windows apps on the WinRT tablets, only Metro apps. However on the Surface Pro, you will be able to run both Windows and Metro apps because it's using an Intel processor.

Essentially the only difference is that you can't run existing Windows apps on Windows RT. The user interface and mishmash of touch and non-touch UI is common to both.

I use Win8, and I have a concrete problem. I found this problem, simply by trying to use the Win8 Start Screen as an analog for the Win7 Start Menu.

In Win7, I can stick just about anything into the Start Menu (programs, batch files, URLs, files, etc.).

In the Win8 Start Screen, I can only add tiles for: (1) Registered programs (Those programs listed in the Add/Remove Programs Control Panel) and (2) URLs "pinned" in Modern IE10 (I cannot find a way to pin URLs from Desktop IE10).

You can hack your way to a tile for My Computer, and another tile for the Control Panel (by invoking it through an explorer.exe shell command).

I have yet to find a way to add anything else. This will be a problem for me, and for my users. UI theory is all well and good, but here is a case of Microsoft removing a valuable feature, i.e. the ability to put any arbitrary item into the Start Menu/Screen. Why??

The elephant in the room is that Windows 8 works on tablets but not on desktops. It's a bastard operating system that tries to encompass every use case, but in the end delivers very little.

I will be ducking Windows 8, just as I missed Vista. Maybe Microsoft will regain their identity with Windows 9, but this next release is not a good operating system for anyone.

It's hardly the elephant in the room. It's more like an unrelated issue that has little significance despite the whining that's been done over it. The desktop is a dwindling market where Microsoft has zero competition, Microsoft doesn't care if you skip Windows 8, it's goal here is to compete with Android, iOS, tablets, iPads and Airs, the last thing they're worried about is catering to desktop users.

You also contradict yourself in that you admit Windows 8 works for tablets then later say this isn't a good OS for anyone. That clearly isn't the case, and I'd also question how long (if at all) you've been using Windows 8, as most people that actually gave it a chance - even on desktop - find it to be either a moderate improvement or very slight inconvience. The people crying loudest about how bad it is either a) used it for all of an hour then uninstalled or b) haven't used it at all.

Funny. Im totally the gadget guy. I have the the first iPad, the third iPad, the Nexus 7, Iphone, Galaxy Nexus and Macbook air. Whats funny is that I have no interest at all in any of these offerings that are about to hit. I really feel this is only going to be a success in a small group of people, certainly not the iPad lovers of today, which you can say is just fine, but is it really? Dont you want the millions of iPad drones loving and clamoring for your product? Who is exactly going to buy this product? The business man who travels? Fine. But who else in your family wants this? Not my eighty year old mom who loves her ipad, not my sister who carries her ipad around in her bag, not any of my clients who take out their ipads and use them while they sit in our office. I don't know where everyone else lives but here in NYC everyone has an iPad, hell, I just came back from Tokyo this week and they were in use everywhere.Im not an Apple Fan Boy. I love me some Android. I just dont see this as a "different" product. Convertible laptops have been around forever, isnt this the same thing with new clothes on? Oh, and before you say Im bashing something I havent tried, I am dual booting Win7/Win8.

Fair enough, but you will note that my needs (in addition to the "lower-level users'" needs) are thoroughly addressed by Apple products...and there's no Microsoft-based product on the horizon that's going to replace my iPad.

Well, there's no Apple product that's going to replace my desktop system with an Intel i7-2700k quad-core CPU and an NVIDIA GTX 680. The point is that different people have different needs.

I can understand people saying that hybrids aren't right for them -- I'm not sure I would want one, myself. On the other hand, I can't agree with people who say that hybrids aren't right for <i>anyone<i>.

(Though, I admit, that was my first reaction to the iPad, but the market disagreed.)

Microsoft does not "get" the iPad. Everyone defending these new products does not "get" the iPad. Everyone apologizing for/excusing the drawbacks of these new products does not "get" the iPad.

Apple sells 18 million iPads each quarter. In three quarters, Apple sells more iPads than Microsoft has ever sold XBox 360s. Every single one was sold to an individual or a business which did not want a PC and did not want Windows. The whole point of iPad is that it is not Windows; it's an alternative to Windows. People and businesses all over the world are totally sick of Windows and are paying Apple through the nose in order to do things a different way.

Microsoft seems to think that the one thing wrong with iPad -- the one thing that's making it less popular than it "could be" -- is that it needs to be more like a Windows PC (the very thing it's delighting people by replacing).

It's exactly as if 7UP, after making millions as "the Un-Cola," decided that they would make even more money if they changed the product to a brown cola-like beverage, since "that's what's missing." It's like fleeing a despotic nation and bringing the despot with you. It's like creating "MTV Unplugged" and then deciding that the show would be even more popular if the "missing" electric guitars (which work so well in the rest of the music industry!) were put back in.

The entire point of iPad is that it's an alternative to the Windows-based PCs everyone's tired of dealing with. (Not you people reading -- tech people who use advanced PC applications for your livelihood or hobbies -- but everybody else in the world.) Look at the sales figures! I don't know how it's possible for this screamingly obvious point to be so completely invisible to Steve Ballmer and so many other people.

ON EDIT: More precisely, everybody who complains that "iPads aren't good for content creation" has to get their heads around the fact that the vast majority of customers -- from CEOs to wage-earners/salaried employees to home users -- don't create content. Most people could go their entire lives without ever dealing with an "Office" document (unless it's a few paragraphs of formatted text -- resumé; office party "flyer;" family Christmas "card" -- that could exist in any of a dozen other forms, or as a container for photos, or because they "need" Excel in order to make some kind of rudimentary list or table).

The elephant in the room is that Windows 8 works on tablets but not on desktops.

No, I don't think it is an elephant at all.

You see, a Windows 8 hybrid or tablet can connect to an external monitor via HDMI, which means that you can use your hybrid or tablet as a base unit for when you want to use it as a desktop, because Windows 8 supports multiple monitors. Besides, if you want to, you can make Windows 8 work in the same way as Windows 7 just by installing a 3rd party utility such as Start8.

So, a Windows 8 hybrid or tablet could indeed replace all your devices with a single device, and if you do a lot of desktop work then the only extra device you would need is a large external monitor for all your complex desktop work. But you still only have a single device containing your local storage and processor etc.

Fair enough, but you will note that my needs (in addition to the "lower-level users'" needs) are thoroughly addressed by Apple products...and there's no Microsoft-based product on the horizon that's going to replace my iPad.

Well, there's no Apple product that's going to replace my desktop system with an Intel i7-2700k quad-core CPU and an NVIDIA GTX 680. The point is that different people have different needs.

I can understand people saying that hybrids aren't right for them -- I'm not sure I would want one, myself. On the other hand, I can't agree with people who say that hybrids aren't right for <i>anyone<i>.

(Though, I admit, that was my first reaction to the iPad, but the market disagreed.)

Microsoft does not "get" the iPad. Everyone defending these new products does not "get" the iPad. Everyone apologizing for/excusing the drawbacks of these new products does not "get" the iPad.

Apple sells 18 million iPads each quarter. In three quarters, Apple sells more iPads than Microsoft has ever sold XBox 360s. Every single one was sold to an individual or a business which did not want a PC and did not want Windows. The whole point of iPad is that it is not Windows; it's an alternative to Windows. People and businesses all over the world are totally sick of Windows and are paying Apple through the nose in order to do things a different way.

Microsoft seems to think that the one thing wrong with iPad -- the one thing that's making it less popular than it "could be" -- is that it needs to be more like a Windows PC (the very thing it's delighting people by replacing).

It's exactly as if 7UP, after making millions as "the Un-Cola," decided that they would make even more money if they changed the product to a brown cola-like beverage, since "that's what's missing." It's like fleeing a despotic nation and bringing the despot with you. It's like creating "MTV Unplugged" and then deciding that the show would be even more popular if the "missing" electric guitars (which work so well in the rest of the music industry!) were put back in.

The entire point of iPad is that it's an alternative to the Windows-based PCs everyone's tired of dealing with. (Not you people reading -- tech people who use advanced PC applications for your livelihood or hobbies -- but everybody else in the world.) Look at the sales figures! I don't know how it's possible for this screamingly obvious point to be so completely invisible to Steve Ballmer and so many other people.

ON EDIT: More precisely, everybody who complains that "iPads aren't good for content creation" has to get their heads around the fact that the vast majority of customers -- from CEOs to wage-earners/salaried employees to home users -- don't create content. Most people could go their entire lives without ever dealing with an "Office" document (unless it's a few paragraphs of formatted text -- resumé; office party "flyer;" family Christmas "card" -- that could exist in any of a dozen other forms, or as a container for photos, or because they "need" Excel in order to make some kind of rudimentary list or table).

....Apple sells 18 million iPads each quarter. In three quarters, Apple sells more iPads than Microsoft has ever sold XBox 360s. Every single one was sold to an individual or a business which did not want a PC and did not want Windows. The whole point of iPad is that it is not Windows; it's an alternative to Windows. People and businesses all over the world are totally sick of Windows and are paying Apple through the nose in order to do things a different way.........ON EDIT: More precisely, everybody who complains that "iPads aren't good for content creation" has to get their heads around the fact that the vast majority of customers -- from CEOs to wage-earners/salaried employees to home users -- don't create content. Most people could go their entire lives without ever dealing with an "Office" document (unless it's a few paragraphs of formatted text -- resumé; office party "flyer;" family Christmas "card" -- that could exist in any of a dozen other forms, or as a container for photos, or because they "need" Excel in order to make some kind of rudimentary list or table).

The only people I know who could go their entire lives without ever dealing with an Office document are already near the end of their lives. I don't know a single person who hasn't used either a word processor, spreadsheet, or presentation software (and I know a lot of people). That doesn't mean they don't exist, of course, but not "most". It sounds like you are just making up stuff to try and support your hypothesis. You might as well say most people can't type; works just as well for your argument.

I would agree that there are plenty of people who spend the majority of their time not creating content. But I would also guess most of those have a desktop computer at work or at home to fill the 20% content creation needs (I made that number up based on the 80/20 rule). Next time around those people might opt for a Windows tablet which can also function like a full computer with some extra screens and keyboards.

I think Microsoft gets the iPad just fine. I also think you must not get why the majority like the iPad. It is not specifically the lack of Windows, but the form factor of the hardware combined with the integration it offers with a variety of other devices. Any piece of software written for the iPad can be written for a Windows Tablet if they can get actual devices out there. Besides, Microsoft has sold more copies of Windows 7 than Apple has sold iPads. I don't think it's an issue with people NOT liking Windows. Hehehe, of course that may change with Windows 8. Who knows.

When my daughter brought me her Samsung netbook, running xp, it had over 4000 problems reported by a virus checker. I don't think they were all viruses but the application couldn't fix it so I had to restore the machine from a backup made when she first got it 2 years ago.

This is the kind of crap that people are sick off and want to move to iPad etc to avoid.

When my daughter brought me her Samsung netbook, running xp, it had over 4000 problems reported by a virus checker. I don't think they were all viruses but the application couldn't fix it so I had to restore the machine from a backup made when she first got it 2 years ago.

This is the kind of crap that people are sick off and want to move to iPad etc to avoid.

What I have noticed is that most people who made a switch to Apple have done so after having a bad experience with XP or Vista, and experienced something much better on an iPad or Mac. However, you rarely hear of users switching to Apple products as a result of a bad experience with Windows 7 - and that's because Windows 7 is very good operating system.

When my daughter brought me her Samsung netbook, running xp, it had over 4000 problems reported by a virus checker. I don't think they were all viruses but the application couldn't fix it so I had to restore the machine from a backup made when she first got it 2 years ago.

This is the kind of crap that people are sick off and want to move to iPad etc to avoid.

What I have noticed is that most people who made a switch to Apple have done so after having a bad experience with XP or Vista, and experienced something much better on an iPad or Mac. However, you rarely hear of users switching to Apple products as a result of a bad experience with Windows 7 - and that's because Windows 7 is very good operating system.

Yes I have it on bootcamp for playing games and from what I have seen it looks fine, but there is a lot that remember the xp and vista stuff. Simplicity is the key here. The iPad is a very simple device to use, apps are easy to use and buy and with no maintenance iPads are what a lot of people are looking for. The lack of technical understanding by the masses cannot be underestimated, a large proportion of people have not even mastered the hierarchal filing system on pc's.I think MS have made the tablets more confusing than necessary. If they made the RT model with only the touch interface and no desktop and no keyboard I think they would be more successful.

When my daughter brought me her Samsung netbook, running xp, it had over 4000 problems reported by a virus checker. I don't think they were all viruses but the application couldn't fix it so I had to restore the machine from a backup made when she first got it 2 years ago.

This is the kind of crap that people are sick off and want to move to iPad etc to avoid.

What I have noticed is that most people who made a switch to Apple have done so after having a bad experience with XP or Vista, and experienced something much better on an iPad or Mac. However, you rarely hear of users switching to Apple products as a result of a bad experience with Windows 7 - and that's because Windows 7 is very good operating system.

Yes I have it on bootcamp for playing games and from what I have seen it looks fine, but there is a lot that remember the xp and vista stuff. Simplicity is the key here. The iPad is a very simple device to use, apps are easy to use and buy and with no maintenance iPads are what a lot of people are looking for. The lack of technical understanding by the masses cannot be underestimated, a large proportion of people have not even mastered the hierarchal filing system on pc's.I think MS have made the tablets more confusing than necessary. If they made the RT model with only the touch interface and no desktop and no keyboard I think they would be more successful.

I agree. I think that we will eventually see a Windows RT tablet without any desktop mode. Windows RT provides Microsoft with the required foundation to transition to a direct iPad equivalent. Who knows, we may even see some OEMs releasing Windows RT tablets with the desktop mode disabled.

Apple sells 18 million iPads each quarter. In three quarters, Apple sells more iPads than Microsoft has ever sold XBox 360s. Every single one was sold to an individual or a business which did not want a PC and did not want Windows. The whole point of iPad is that it is not Windows; it's an alternative to Windows. People and businesses all over the world are totally sick of Windows and are paying Apple through the nose in order to do things a different way.

...

The entire point of iPad is that it's an alternative to the Windows-based PCs everyone's tired of dealing with. (Not you people reading -- tech people who use advanced PC applications for your livelihood or hobbies -- but everybody else in the world.) Look at the sales figures! I don't know how it's possible for this screamingly obvious point to be so completely invisible to Steve Ballmer and so many other people.

I find it interesting how Apple fans place a huge emphasis on iPad sales figures in the tablet space, but totally discount the Android sales advantage in the smartphone space...

What I have noticed is that most people who made a switch to Apple have done so after having a bad experience with XP or Vista, and experienced something much better on an iPad or Mac. However, you rarely hear of users switching to Apple products as a result of a bad experience with Windows 7 - and that's because Windows 7 is very good operating system.

I've liked it so far. Most of the people I've talked to who use Macs say the exact same thing. Ran into a bunch of viruses so paid extra for the virus immune operating system. I'm not even trying to be silly. With that level of understanding it's not hard to believe they went for the system with more padding on the walls.

I still own both and honestly I don't see any big reason to switch. I can play and build games on W7 and OSX supports some of that, just not all of it. Funny thing is even with the people who switch because "Windows is so terrible" it still has a better market share. Of course some people aren't really "computer people" either and personally that's fine by me though it seems like buying a luxury SUV unable get over 80 MPH when you could buy a cheaper and faster vehicle, but it still works for some people anyway.

I haven't really looked into tablets much, between my laptop and phone I seem to be covered. Of course if I bough one I would probably love it to death anyway. Some of these though I just don't get. I mean needing the keyboard for anything on a device built to function while not at a desk sounds absurd. Maybe this whole thing will work but it for some reason seems like it's "almost there" instead.

What I have noticed is that most people who made a switch to Apple have done so after having a bad experience with XP or Vista, and experienced something much better on an iPad or Mac. However, you rarely hear of users switching to Apple products as a result of a bad experience with Windows 7 - and that's because Windows 7 is very good operating system.

I've liked it so far. Most of the people I've talked to who use Macs say the exact same thing. Ran into a bunch of viruses so paid extra for the virus immune operating system. I'm not even trying to be silly. With that level of understanding it's not hard to believe they went for the system with more padding on the walls.

I still own both and honestly I don't see any big reason to switch. I can play and build games on W7 and OSX supports some of that, just not all of it. Funny thing is even with the people who switch because "Windows is so terrible" it still has a better market share. Of course some people aren't really "computer people" either and personally that's fine by me though it seems like buying a luxury SUV unable get over 80 MPH when you could buy a cheaper and faster vehicle, but it still works for some people anyway.

I haven't really looked into tablets much, between my laptop and phone I seem to be covered. Of course if I bough one I would probably love it to death anyway. Some of these though I just don't get. I mean needing the keyboard for anything on a device built to function while not at a desk sounds absurd. Maybe this whole thing will work but it for some reason seems like it's "almost there" instead.

I think the reason why we have such a diverse range of devices being launched for Windows 8 is that there are a wide range of user requirements out there. Some people need a laptop, others need a desktop, and others need a tablet. Some need a combination of these. That's why Windows 8 will work, because you can choose a single device that best meets most (or all) of your requirements. You certainly don't need a physical keyboard to use Windows 8, because if you need to do any typing you can use the on-screen keyboard. But since plenty of people do want a physical keyboard so that it doesn't take up screen space, then I can certainly understand why manufacturers are including them.

What I do find interesting is how so many people keep going on about how a tablet should not need a physical keyboard because it has a touch-screen, yet you could apply similar reverse logic to laptops - why should a laptop not have a touch-screen? It makes perfect sense to navigate a laptop UI with your finger on the screen just like you would a tablet. That's basically what most of these Windows 8 hybrid devices are all about! The differences between all of them are due to the subtle differences in their primary usage designs. Surface Pro is an example of a tablet that can be used as a laptop (primary usage = tablet, secondary usage = laptop), whereas the Lenovo Yoga is a laptop which can be used as a tablet (primary usage = laptop, secondary usage = tablet). Both of these can also function as base units for connecting to a large external monitor (via HDMI) to give you a desktop. Neither of them are necessarily aimed specifically at replacing the iPad, but are instead aimed at users who have several devices and want to replace them with a single device.

Apple makes money on hardware and therefore they want you to buy as many different devices as possible. To ensure that you have a nice experience using all of these seperate devices, Apple have made it really easy for all these devices to sync with eachother. And that's fine. But that's why Apple will never follow Microsoft's device convergence route, simply because Apple would make much less profit by selling fewer devices to every user. Device convergence is not in Apple's best interest.

Microsoft OTOH has approached this from another angle - rather than users needing loads of devices, let's give users the opportunity to buy a single device which best fits all their usage scenarios. If you choose the correct device for your requirements, then this will also be fine.

Apple sells 18 million iPads each quarter. In three quarters, Apple sells more iPads than Microsoft has ever sold XBox 360s. Every single one was sold to an individual or a business which did not want a PC and did not want Windows. The whole point of iPad is that it is not Windows; it's an alternative to Windows. People and businesses all over the world are totally sick of Windows and are paying Apple through the nose in order to do things a different way.

...

The entire point of iPad is that it's an alternative to the Windows-based PCs everyone's tired of dealing with. (Not you people reading -- tech people who use advanced PC applications for your livelihood or hobbies -- but everybody else in the world.) Look at the sales figures! I don't know how it's possible for this screamingly obvious point to be so completely invisible to Steve Ballmer and so many other people.

I find it interesting how Apple fans place a huge emphasis on iPad sales figures in the tablet space, but totally discount the Android sales advantage in the smartphone space...

If you follow my argument, I'm saying that Apple makes tons of money by providing a specific experience that isn't available elsewhere. (Microsoft gets in trouble by disregarding this and trying to provide another, different experience that nobody wants.) With phones, the same logic holds -- Apple makes tons of money by providing a specific experience -- and Android also makes tons of money by providing an illegal copy of that experience.

(What's great about the court verdict is that I don't have to fall back on my mere opinion to make this point: it's now been legally demonstrated.)

Ok, so you're able to just get past the touch UI and go the desktop....good for you. But, for 99 percent of the customers out there using a mouse and keyboard, they're going to be stuck in the default Metro environment. Those people (nearly everyone) will be wondering what the heck a charms bar is, they won't know how to turn off their computer, and they won't understand the swipe gestures on the track pad.

Microsoft did do usability tests. They obviously know there is a learning curve. They also know people adapt to it.

People know about Ctrl+C even though it isn't obvious at all. Because it can be used time and time again, they somehow got to know it and use it. People will learn what the charms bar is; maybe someone tells them or they accidentally wander in those bars. Then they are good to go for many years on many, many apps. Consistency is key here.

Also, most people buy Windows 8 on new pc's. And those keyboards will have dedicated charm keys. Want to search in an app? Just hit the Search key. Want to shutdown? Hit the settings key and hit the Off-button. People will figure this out.

How intuitive is the current desktop anyway? To shutdown you have to press the Start button. That makes no sense at all; you are not going to start anything. How about the double tap on the iPad home button; makes no sense whatsoever.

This is honestly one of the strangest apologies for Windows 8 I've ever read.

I don't see where you're making any connection to anything... "Metro/Charms is great because people will accidentally figure out that they serve some sort of function. The Start button doesn't make sense at all (FYI: it actually doesn't say "Start" on it...)

....Apple sells 18 million iPads each quarter. In three quarters, Apple sells more iPads than Microsoft has ever sold XBox 360s. Every single one was sold to an individual or a business which did not want a PC and did not want Windows. The whole point of iPad is that it is not Windows; it's an alternative to Windows. People and businesses all over the world are totally sick of Windows and are paying Apple through the nose in order to do things a different way.........ON EDIT: More precisely, everybody who complains that "iPads aren't good for content creation" has to get their heads around the fact that the vast majority of customers -- from CEOs to wage-earners/salaried employees to home users -- don't create content. Most people could go their entire lives without ever dealing with an "Office" document (unless it's a few paragraphs of formatted text -- resumé; office party "flyer;" family Christmas "card" -- that could exist in any of a dozen other forms, or as a container for photos, or because they "need" Excel in order to make some kind of rudimentary list or table).

The only people I know who could go their entire lives without ever dealing with an Office document are already near the end of their lives. I don't know a single person who hasn't used either a word processor, spreadsheet, or presentation software (and I know a lot of people). That doesn't mean they don't exist, of course, but not "most". It sounds like you are just making up stuff to try and support your hypothesis. You might as well say most people can't type; works just as well for your argument.

I would agree that there are plenty of people who spend the majority of their time not creating content. But I would also guess most of those have a desktop computer at work or at home to fill the 20% content creation needs (I made that number up based on the 80/20 rule). Next time around those people might opt for a Windows tablet which can also function like a full computer with some extra screens and keyboards.

I think Microsoft gets the iPad just fine. I also think you must not get why the majority like the iPad. It is not specifically the lack of Windows, but the form factor of the hardware combined with the integration it offers with a variety of other devices. Any piece of software written for the iPad can be written for a Windows Tablet if they can get actual devices out there. Besides, Microsoft has sold more copies of Windows 7 than Apple has sold iPads. I don't think it's an issue with people NOT liking Windows. Hehehe, of course that may change with Windows 8. Who knows.

I'm not going to re-state my argument (which I think I made pretty clear) but I obviously disagree.

I think that you've got the whole thing wrong -- that you're demonstrating that you're one of the people whom I complain don't "get" the iPad -- but you especially lose me right here:

pixelstuff wrote:

I don't think it's an issue with people NOT liking Windows.

If that's truly what you believe, then it's no wonder you don't understand the iPad phenomenon: you're fundamentally blind to what's going on in the entire tech industry and what's defining its moves right now.

ON EDIT: Even before the iPad it was easy to see that nobody liked Windows. People tolerate Windows because they must; because it's the default environment for computing; because it's locked into OEM manufacturing and IT purchasing and third-party development cycles. But that's the thing about a monopoly: if nobody's competing with you, then you don't have to actually appeal to customers: they're going to buy your product no matter what.

So you have to "free your mind" and start from the premise that the millions and millions of Windows users don't actually like it -- that the "sales figures" don't mean anything in a monopoly situation (as I said, this was abundantly clear even before the iPad). The success of iPad simply clinches the argument: given another way to do most of the "computing tasks" in their lives, people went absolutely bananas buying into it.

ON EDIT: Even before the iPad it was easy to see that nobody liked Windows. People tolerate Windows because they must; because it's the default environment for computing; because it's locked into OEM manufacturing and IT purchasing and third-party development cycles. But that's the thing about a monopoly: if nobody's competing with you, then you don't have to actually appeal to customers: they're going to buy your product no matter what.

So you have to "free your mind" and start from the premise that the millions and millions of Windows users don't actually like it -- that the "sales figures" don't mean anything in a monopoly situation (as I said, this was abundantly clear even before the iPad). The success of iPad simply clinches the argument: given another way to do most of the "computing tasks" in their lives, people went absolutely bananas buying into it.

I think if that was actually true, the Mac would have a larger market share. It's always been an alternative to Windows, they didn't need the iPad for that. The Mac market share is growing, but I think that is a halo effect from the iPhone and iPad, not simply hate for Windows.

I think that it is something about the iPad itself that is the appeal. Given what it takes away from the user, I think it is actually not hate for Windows so much as hate for computers in general. Installation of software is easier, system configuration is easier, you don't have to do any file management, etc etc. There is a significant part of the market that feels they need email and web browsing and such, but nevertheless does not like computers. Simple, unified design, and ease of use are what it does well; these are not things that people think of computers as providing (even Macs).

That's not to say that's the entire appeal of the iPad, because the iPad also appeals to people who like computers, but I think it is a big part.

ON EDIT: Even before the iPad it was easy to see that nobody liked Windows. People tolerate Windows because they must; because it's the default environment for computing; because it's locked into OEM manufacturing and IT purchasing and third-party development cycles. But that's the thing about a monopoly: if nobody's competing with you, then you don't have to actually appeal to customers: they're going to buy your product no matter what.

So you have to "free your mind" and start from the premise that the millions and millions of Windows users don't actually like it -- that the "sales figures" don't mean anything in a monopoly situation (as I said, this was abundantly clear even before the iPad). The success of iPad simply clinches the argument: given another way to do most of the "computing tasks" in their lives, people went absolutely bananas buying into it.

I think if that was actually true, the Mac would have a larger market share. It's always been an alternative to Windows, they didn't need the iPad for that. The Mac market share is growing, but I think that is a halo effect from the iPhone and iPad, not simply hate for Windows.

I think that it is something about the iPad itself that is the appeal. Given what it takes away from the user, I think it is actually not hate for Windows so much as hate for computers in general. Installation of software is easier, system configuration is easier, you don't have to do any file management, etc etc. There is a significant part of the market that feels they need email and web browsing and such, but nevertheless does not like computers. Simple, unified design, and ease of use are what it does well; these are not things that people think of computers as providing (even Macs).

That's not to say that's the entire appeal of the iPad, because the iPad also appeals to people who like computers, but I think it is a big part.

The Mac doesn't have a larger market share for, as I said, monopolistic reasons. It doesn't help that Apple's offerings throughout the late eighties and the entire nineties -- the "Windows Renaissance" -- were so awful and out-of-date. If you confine the discussion to OS X, then it's only ten years of real competition, during which time Apple's market share has grown astronomically and consistently, quarter after quarter, regardless of the iPad or anything else (although you're right that those products have accelerated the growth).

ON EDIT: Even before the iPad it was easy to see that nobody liked Windows. People tolerate Windows because they must; because it's the default environment for computing; because it's locked into OEM manufacturing and IT purchasing and third-party development cycles. But that's the thing about a monopoly: if nobody's competing with you, then you don't have to actually appeal to customers: they're going to buy your product no matter what.

So you have to "free your mind" and start from the premise that the millions and millions of Windows users don't actually like it -- that the "sales figures" don't mean anything in a monopoly situation (as I said, this was abundantly clear even before the iPad). The success of iPad simply clinches the argument: given another way to do most of the "computing tasks" in their lives, people went absolutely bananas buying into it.

I think if that was actually true, the Mac would have a larger market share. It's always been an alternative to Windows, they didn't need the iPad for that. The Mac market share is growing, but I think that is a halo effect from the iPhone and iPad, not simply hate for Windows.

I think that it is something about the iPad itself that is the appeal. Given what it takes away from the user, I think it is actually not hate for Windows so much as hate for computers in general. Installation of software is easier, system configuration is easier, you don't have to do any file management, etc etc. There is a significant part of the market that feels they need email and web browsing and such, but nevertheless does not like computers. Simple, unified design, and ease of use are what it does well; these are not things that people think of computers as providing (even Macs).

That's not to say that's the entire appeal of the iPad, because the iPad also appeals to people who like computers, but I think it is a big part.

The Mac doesn't have a larger market share for, as I said, monopolistic reasons. It doesn't help that Apple's offerings throughout the late eighties and the entire nineties -- the "Windows Renaissance" -- were so awful and out-of-date. If you confine the discussion to OS X, then it's only ten years of real competition, during which time Apple's market share has grown astronomically and consistently, quarter after quarter, regardless of the iPad or anything else (although you're right that those products have accelerated the growth).

At this point you can run Windows programs on a Mac, I don't think monopolistic reasons are the powerful force they once were. If this explanation was true, I'd expect to see serious acceleration of Mac adoption. But things look pretty stable over the last few years: http://gs.statcounter.com/#os-US-monthly-200807-201209

(That graph makes it look like Windows 7 has grown explosively, but that growth is coming from people leaving XP and Vista. I suppose an argument could be made that this shows people are upgrading, and people at the point of upgrades or new systems are the ones who are at the point where switching to Mac would make sense, since they are making a change either way. I'm not going to claim this is a strong argument....)

I'm saying that Apple makes tons of money by providing a specific experience that isn't available elsewhere. (Microsoft gets in trouble by disregarding this and trying to provide another, different experience that nobody wants.) With phones, the same logic holds -- Apple makes tons of money by providing a specific experience -- and Android also makes tons of money by providing an illegal copy of that experience.

(What's great about the court verdict is that I don't have to fall back on my mere opinion to make this point: it's now been legally demonstrated.)

Well, if you're relying on court verdicts, then it's been demonstrated that Samsung infringes on Apple's patents, but Motorola does not. And if you include courts outside the US, it's also been demonstrated that Apple infringes on Samsung's 3G patents.

More to the point, Windows PCs still outsell Macs, so the idea that everyone wants the Apple experience over the Microsoft experience is demonstrably false.

ON EDIT: Even before the iPad it was easy to see that nobody liked Windows. People tolerate Windows because they must; because it's the default environment for computing; because it's locked into OEM manufacturing and IT purchasing and third-party development cycles. But that's the thing about a monopoly: if nobody's competing with you, then you don't have to actually appeal to customers: they're going to buy your product no matter what.

So you have to "free your mind" and start from the premise that the millions and millions of Windows users don't actually like it -- that the "sales figures" don't mean anything in a monopoly situation (as I said, this was abundantly clear even before the iPad). The success of iPad simply clinches the argument: given another way to do most of the "computing tasks" in their lives, people went absolutely bananas buying into it.

I think if that was actually true, the Mac would have a larger market share. It's always been an alternative to Windows, they didn't need the iPad for that. The Mac market share is growing, but I think that is a halo effect from the iPhone and iPad, not simply hate for Windows.

I think that it is something about the iPad itself that is the appeal. Given what it takes away from the user, I think it is actually not hate for Windows so much as hate for computers in general. Installation of software is easier, system configuration is easier, you don't have to do any file management, etc etc. There is a significant part of the market that feels they need email and web browsing and such, but nevertheless does not like computers. Simple, unified design, and ease of use are what it does well; these are not things that people think of computers as providing (even Macs).

That's not to say that's the entire appeal of the iPad, because the iPad also appeals to people who like computers, but I think it is a big part.

The Mac doesn't have a larger market share for, as I said, monopolistic reasons. It doesn't help that Apple's offerings throughout the late eighties and the entire nineties -- the "Windows Renaissance" -- were so awful and out-of-date. If you confine the discussion to OS X, then it's only ten years of real competition, during which time Apple's market share has grown astronomically and consistently, quarter after quarter, regardless of the iPad or anything else (although you're right that those products have accelerated the growth).

At this point you can run Windows programs on a Mac, I don't think monopolistic reasons are the powerful force they once were. If this explanation was true, I'd expect to see serious acceleration of Mac adoption. But things look pretty stable over the last few years: http://gs.statcounter.com/#os-US-monthly-200807-201209

(That graph makes it look like Windows 7 has grown explosively, but that growth is coming from people leaving XP and Vista. I suppose an argument could be made that this shows people are upgrading, and people at the point of upgrades or new systems are the ones who are at the point where switching to Mac would make sense, since they are making a change either way. I'm not going to claim this is a strong argument....)

Windows adoption rates are always misleading because they're tied to OEM adoption and corporate volume sales. And (as I mentioned) Mac adoption always faces an uphill battle because IT departments are usually loath to switch to Apple (for various inertial reasons, including the lingering bad memories based on the fifteen years of bad Apple tech that I mentioned, during which Macs were overpriced, underperforming network security risks that were difficult to write software for).

I am having flashbacks to 2004 and the convertible laptops based on Windows XP Tablet PC Edition. These sold at premium prices and were a niche market. The x86 Windows 8 hybrid devices will undoubtedly sell for a premium and be a niche market as well.

There are few use-cases where businesses, or other organizations, will justify the extra cost for these. As it is, enterprises appear to have little interest in Windows 8. They likely will be downgrading purchases of Windows 8 systems to Windows 7 for some time, as they did with Vista to XP downgrades. As well, Windows RT tablets will be a no-go in business because they lack the capability to join domains, apply GPOs, run x86 software, etc.

As many have stated above, existing tablets (particularly the iPad, Nexus 7 and Amazon Fire) are popular because they have small footprints, are relatively inexpensive, and require no significant learning curves. These are true post-PC devices. They also have rich app and content ecosystems. Windows RT tablets, if cost competitive, may find some success with consumers, and I hope they do; however, they will have an uphill battle.

Many also have stated the "one device" argument as a reason x86 Windows 8 hybrid and Windows RT devices will succeed. Use-cases again undermine this reasoning. For example, I have a Lenovo E520 15.6" entry-level business laptop with Windows 7 Pro, Core i5 CPU, 80 GB SSD for the system drive, 500 GB HD for data, 8 GB RAM, and full numeric keypad. I paid ~$800 for this laptop. This meets my needs perfectly for a technical computer - you may require more, or less, computer. I also have a $200 Nexus 7 tablet. I use the tablet for reading, watching movies, and other tablety sorts of things. I can curl up in bed with the tablet, without fear of falling asleep and knocking it on the floor because if I do it will either: (a) survive the drop, or (b) cost me $200 if it doesn't (no small change, but I am not out my computer if this happens). I also can hand over the tablet to a 5 year old without having a panic attack. From my perspective - two devices are better than one. I also expect that a x86 Windows 8 hybrid with the specs of my laptop will cost significantly more than $1000.

Finally, I suspect tablets are contributing significantly to stalled PC sales, at least in the consumer market. People are purchasing tablets (for tablety sorts of uses) and holding off on upgrading, or replacing, their home PCs. I have witnessed this personally with family and friends, and I see this trend continuing for the foreseeable future, which will accelerate the race-to-the-bottom that has become the PC market. Again, Windows RT tablets may make inroads, but these will not save the PC.

Microsoft has no other choice, but to continue the tacking they have committed to with Windows 8. I am unsure if x86 Windows 8 hybrid is the right answer. I am one who is perfectly happy with Windows 7 on laptops and desktops. The Modern UI has no appeal to me on these platforms. Overall, Microsoft has a rich ecosystem in business computing with Windows Server, Active Directory, Exchange, SharePoint, Office, etc. They likely will learn from any mistakes made with Windows 8 (such as forcing the Modern UI) and correct these in Windows 9 or in a service pack.

Don`t take this as trolling but why does it seem that tablets are morphing back into netbooks. My wife bought an iPad last year and the first thing she did was purchase a bluetooth keyboard case and viola, a netbook was born. I still have my dell mini 9 with a 32GB runcore SSD 2GB ram and this thing is very fast considering it only has a 1.6 processor. It has a FULL productivity suite and I can take it anywhere. I have a car charger for on the road power, if needed, and by using my Android phone as a broadband receiver, can work from the road anywhere. My wife and her iPad cannot. Now I see more and more manufacturers producing tablets with optional keypads, basically converting them into glorified netbooks. Maybe they should just make netbooks with touch screens as it seems that is the current path the new technology is heading. Just my observations.

Don`t take this as trolling but why does it seem that tablets are morphing back into netbooks. My wife bought an iPad last year and the first thing she did was purchase a bluetooth keyboard case and viola, a netbook was born.

With the right keyboard and case, typing and propping up an iPad can be much easier. I use the Zagg folio for this.

hollyhock wrote:

Now I see more and more manufacturers producing tablets with optional keypads, basically converting them into glorified netbooks. Maybe they should just make netbooks with touch screens as it seems that is the current path the new technology is heading.

This misses the main attraction for the iPad and Android tablets; everything being optimized for finger touch.

A good tablet completely eliminates the need for a touch pad, pen or a a mouse. No extra pointing device needs to be carried. Just touch the screen. - But this only works if all the software on the tablet works with finger touch. This lack of complete conversion to finger touch in Windows 8/MS Office is something that Peter has been talking about for several months.

I am having flashbacks to 2004 and the convertible laptops based on Windows XP Tablet PC Edition. These sold at premium prices and were a niche market. The x86 Windows 8 hybrid devices will undoubtedly sell for a premium and be a niche market as well.

There are few use-cases where businesses, or other organizations, will justify the extra cost for these. As it is, enterprises appear to have little interest in Windows 8. They likely will be downgrading purchases of Windows 8 systems to Windows 7 for some time, as they did with Vista to XP downgrades. As well, Windows RT tablets will be a no-go in business because they lack the capability to join domains, apply GPOs, run x86 software, etc.

what data are you using to back your guesses? Tablet PCs, while having failed to catch on with the mainstream audience, has quite good penetration in many niche business sectors such as the medical field with devices like the Panasonic Toughbook. Motion has a line of Tablet PCs that are very popular in the medical industry as well.